You keep saying this, but I don’t understand why. Hear me out.
So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you’re aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?
Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society’s convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren’t in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi’s code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you’re a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn’t guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it’s not wrong.
I’m just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility
Vigilante justice is always wrong
Now, where did I claim that it’s never wrong? Because that’s what you seem to argue. You won’t find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like “vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn’t weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling”. So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.
I’ll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn’t know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn’t really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it’s his, and rides off into the sunset with it.
So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?
You seem to be under the impression that there’s only 2 agruments here when in reality there is at least 3.
Your interpretation seems to be that Either Vigilante justice is never OK, or vigilante justice is always OK.
No one here is arguing that vigilante justice is always OK.
The argument here is between vigilante justice is always OK, and vigilante justice is sometimes OK.
The examples of slave revolts and lynchings of black people both fall into the camp of sometimes. Slave revolts are always morally good, while racist lynchings of black people are always not morally good. Both were illegal at the same time, but at no point is it argued that both are always morally good.
You keep saying this, but I don’t understand why. Hear me out.
So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you’re aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?
Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society’s convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren’t in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi’s code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you’re a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn’t guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it’s not wrong.
deleted by creator
I’m just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility
Now, where did I claim that it’s never wrong? Because that’s what you seem to argue. You won’t find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like “vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn’t weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling”. So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.
I’ll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn’t know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn’t really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it’s his, and rides off into the sunset with it.
So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?
You seem to be under the impression that there’s only 2 agruments here when in reality there is at least 3.
Your interpretation seems to be that Either Vigilante justice is never OK, or vigilante justice is always OK.
No one here is arguing that vigilante justice is always OK.
The argument here is between vigilante justice is always OK, and vigilante justice is sometimes OK.
The examples of slave revolts and lynchings of black people both fall into the camp of sometimes. Slave revolts are always morally good, while racist lynchings of black people are always not morally good. Both were illegal at the same time, but at no point is it argued that both are always morally good.
You seem to have all of the comprehension and logical reasoning ability of a middle schooler.